Atheists often claim that atheism is some how more rational or logical than Theism.

In reality however there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument. 100% of atheistic arguments are illogical.

I challenge any atheist to propose any argument they have here so I can explain how and why it’s illogical. Feel free to post any argument in the comments section here. Everything is free and open here.

This challenge is for atheists who believe either of these:
– God does not exist
– God is unlikely to exist

This is NOT a challenge for atheists who:
– Make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God

I’ll update this article with refutations as people post arguments.

[UPDATE 12.08.2011] – So far no atheist has proposed any argument (I don’t consider that ad hominem as an argument)

[UPDATE 12.17.2011] – Replied to Anon, I am looking forward to more and more arguments and criticisms for me to debunk. Hopefully if more and more people post arguments or questions I can eventually debunk virtually every atheistic argument that exists.

[UPDATE 02.15.2012] – I am short on time, but I updated this post with some new refutations. I will eventually refute all of the laughable arguments atheists have provided. Their arguments are so weak it’s just too easy. I get my arguments from my own independent mind, so how can atheists compete? All they can do is copy arguments from other atheists.

Responses to Arguments:

“Well I don’t believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible dragon, celestial teapot, [insert something that lacks proof here]” – A common argument used by atheists. The problem with this argument is that it’s a non-sequitur. The existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the existence of a FSM, celestial teapot, etc…Contrary to what delusional atheists you can’t refute something by pointing out that you also don’t believe in something else that lacks proof.

Pointing out that you don’t believe in something else that lacks evidence does nothing to refute the existence of God or even indicate that existence of God is unlikely, so this argument is invalid.

Here’s an example applied to something else:
“The luminiferous aether does not exist or is unlikely to exist because I don’t believe in a FSM, invisible dragon, celestial teapot, etc…” – The atheist’s reasoning

Here’s a valid argument:
“The luminiferous aether does not exist or is unlikely to exist because X empirical observation indicates so”

Since this FSM argument does nothing refute the existence of God or indicate that the existence of God is unlikely it is an invalid, illogical reason given for believing that God does not exist or that God is unlikely to exist.

Argument from free-will – Another common argument used by atheists. The problem with this argument is that there’s more scientific evidence against free-will than God so it requires MORE faith to believe in free-will than it does to believe in God.

Since it takes more faith to believe in free-will than God any atheist who believes in free-will will have to admit that faith, evidence, and science has nothing to do with their disbelief in God. Believing in free-will would effectively ruin all the atheistic arguments connected to evidence and science.

Since this argument assumes that free-will exists the very act of arguing this requires MORE faith than believing in God (effectively ruining all evidence-based atheistic arguments).

God is something complex – This argument is simply a straw man. God has never been defined as complex except only by atheists. I don’t know why atheists constantly use this convenient straw man.

If God exists then why do bad things happen?/The Earth is full of suffering – Another common argument used by atheists, what a shame that it’s based off a straw man. The Earth has been defined as an evil place full of suffering and God had never been defined a being who if exists would mean that the Earth would be a place of enjoyment. Heavenly worlds had been defined as good, enjoyable places, not the Earth.

So evil existing on Earth is perfectly consistent with God existing.

God violates Ockham’s razor – This argument just arises from a misunderstanding of what Ockham’s razor is. Ockham’s razor tells that we can only assume the very least to be true, it does not (as atheists believe) tell us that extra assumptions are false. It only tells us that you cannot assume that extra assumptions are true.

For instance prior to General Relativity Ockham’s razor would’ve told us that “Newtonian physics is an extremely accurate model in certain conditions”, it would not have told us that “General Relativity is false or unlikely to be true”.

Through Ockham’s razor we would conclude that modern science tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God (just as with any empirically untestable hypothesis).

“Cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt equates to non-existence” – This argument can be easily be falsified with counterexamples.

Here are some counterexamples:
– Quarks prior to the late 1960s
– Newtonian gravity prior to Newton inventing the mathematics for Newtonian gravity
– General Relativity prior to the mathematics for General Relativity being developed
– A planet far far faraway that cannot be observed
– Atoms and electromagnetism prior to scientists finding ways to empirically test the existence of those things
– Everything in modern science proven to exist now during the time period that it was empirical un-testable

There are many many many things that human beings cannot directly perceive with their senses that really exist. Many things I mentioned on this list can only be indirectly detected, so they cannot be directly seen, felt, or heard even in modern times.

Here are somethings that may exist that human beings cannot directly or indirectly detect in modern times:
– 1-dimensional strings (quadrillions of times smaller than quarks)
– multiple universes
– gravitons

The simple fact is human beings can only scientifically know what’s within the realm of empirical testability, everything outside of that human beings cannot know (scientifically).

“I have never directly seen, heard, or felt the presence of any God” – You haven’t directly seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt? God has been defined as something that cannot be ordinarily seen, heard, or felt. This is simply a form of circular reasoning. Since God is an empirically untestable hypothesis then God cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt by definition. So this argument can be reduced to saying “I have never directly seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt”.

Biblical inerrancy: It’s possible that the Bible contains errors and that God exists so this argument does nothing to show the non-existence or unlikelihood of God. Showing that the Bible contains errors isn’t the same as showing that God doesn’t exist. Arguing against Biblical inerrancy is different from arguing against the existence of God. Arguing that the Bible is full of errors is an argument against Biblical inerrancy, not an argument against the existence of God. The conclusion violates Ockham’s razor so this argument illogical.

What Created God?: God is defined as causeless and requires no Creator. If atheists are arguing that everything requires a cause and that God must have a cause this claim can easily be falsified in science. Energy has no creator, it just had always existed, yet atheists do not object to anyone claiming that energy is causeless, eternal, and all-existing. Many atheists believe that the universe is eternal and always existed…so how can someone argue that the reason why God cannot exist is because God must have a cause but then claim that everything besides God doesn’t require a cause? By what reasoning did atheists conclude that God requires a cause?

No compelling arguments for the existence of a God: Compelling arguments as in scientific evidence for something can only exist for an empirically testable hypothesis. So this again is circular reasoning, just the same as saying “There’s no scientific evidence for something that there cannot be scientific evidence for”. If no one finds a way to test the existence of God, multiple universes, the string theory or anything else empirically untestable then scientific evidence cannot exist for it. All hypotheses and theories in modern science that have scientific evidence today were unproven and lacked evidence during the time period that they were empirically untestable.

Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error I encourage people to question, criticize, scrutinize things so that they can see that I am correct.

The main reason why atheists intentionally disallow free and open criticism of their arguments is specifically because they are anti-science fanatics and know that their arguments and beliefs are wrong and false, so they ban and block anyone from questioning, criticizing, or scrutinizing their arguments. If a statement is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so why do atheists intentionally prevent criticism for?

Since I know my statements are true I intentionally encourage criticism.

Atheistic arguments are so laughable and weak, I don’t know how anyone can seriously take atheistic arguments seriously. If atheists really take their arguments seriously then they must be foolish, idiotic, senseless, or not understand anything about logic or science.

There simply is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

A bunch of fools (atheists) I’ve been talking to didn’t understand how evolution absolutely REQUIRES a magical type of determinism to be true and therefore requires free-will to be non-existent so I’ll try to explain it here.

Since polls show that 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will this absolutely proves that evolutionary biologists don’t value evidence or care about evidence.

– The scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is unbelievably concrete and clear (based on repeatable experiments and direct observations).
– The scientific evidence supporting evolution is unbelievably weak, and not even evidence, just imaginations.

Yet evolutionary biologists are unwilling to question the evidence on evolution but willing to question the evidence on free-will, thereby proving that the reason why evolutionists believe in evolution has absolutely nothing to do with evidence.

The reason why evolutionists believe in evolution is because they’re biased towards evolution and really want to believe in evolution, not because of evidence. Enough said.

If someone were to criticize evolution in the same way that free-will believers criticize the evidence on free-will they would get heavily attacked, kicked out, or fired. In other words you’re allowed to publish unscientific junk criticizing the evidence on free-will but not allowed to criticize evolution with valid scientific criticisms, so evolution is protected like a religious belief, not a real scientific theory.

All of the evolutionists I’ve spoken to believe in free-will, lol, they don’t understand anything about science.

I don’t know how anyone can believe in of all things evolution and also believe in free-will, the two things contradict each other. It shows you the ignorant nature of the evolutionist!

Evolution requires a magical type of determinism, where things repeatedly change and repeatedly increase in complexity in an orderly manner, obviously fantasy and not true, lol.
Non-determinism falsifies evolution (the same arguments free-will believers use), also entropy in deterministic physics falsifies evolution.

Karl Popper defines scientific determinism as “the doctrine that the structure of the world is such that any event can be rationally predicted, with any desired degree of precision, if we are given a sufficiently precise description of past events, together with all the laws of nature” (Karl Popper, The Open Universe, (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1956, 1982)).

How does evolution require determinism to be true?

Dating techniques: All forms of dating and time-measurement require deterministic equations to be accurate, so the dating techniques REQUIRE determinism to be true. Evolutionists often ridicule people for doubting or questioning the accuracy of the dating techniques, but non-determinism and disorder falsifies the accuracy of the dating techniques. If things don’t behave in a predictable way there can’t be any accurate measure of time or any accurate dating technique.Evolution heavily relies on the accuracy of dating techniques, without the dating techniques being extremely accurate evolution would be falsified.

All forms of time-measurement require determinism to be true.

For the dating techniques to be accurate, hard determinism has to be true for billions of years.

You can’t measure time without determinism being true.

Nothing can stay alive, reproduce, or replicate without determinism being true: Organelles in cells have to behave in a systematic orderly predictable manner for species to stay alive, reproduce, and replicate…if they don’t then species die.

Like for instance, the process of mitosis requires certain predictable step-by-step orderly events to occur in a systematic way, if these events are out of order or don’t occur (non-determinism, disorder) then mitosis wouldn’t occur or be malformed, malfunctioned.

The same with other processes, like going from a zygote to a human embryo, if certain predictable orderly events don’t occur then the baby would be malformed or die (congenital anomaly deaths).

The same with the human body…humans have 5 vital organs (the brain, heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs)…if any of your vital organs behave too disorderly or non-deterministically then you would die just like that. For instance people who drink too much alcohol too quickly die from alcohol poisoning, the alcohol affects the brain’s vital centers stopping the brain from behaving in a systematic orderly manner, when this happens you die!

So disorder makes species die off and become extinct, meaning that overtime species wouldn’t evolve instead they would go extinct.

Nothing can evolve in a non-deterministic universe or even in a deterministic universe with too much disorder!

So with non-determinism or too much disorder in a deterministic universe, nothing could be alive long enough for evolution to happen.

Studies show evolution as deterministic even when it appears random: The study published by Karin Kiontke as the leading author (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18024125), shows that evolution is deterministic even in cases when it appears to be random. The number of cell divisions declined overtime instead of randomly increasing or decreasing. This is actually evidence against evolution in a way since it fits more into what modern physics tells us that evolution wouldn’t happen because of the entropy.

The non-deterministic or disorderly effects on evolution falsify evolution and are evidence against evolution.

In high school a teacher of mind said something like “Evolution isn’t a theory, it’s a fact” he then went onto ridicule Calvinists saying that “of course we have free-will we know we do”…lol a what real idiot. It shows you how evolutionists don’t value evidence or care about evidence, understand how evolution contradicts free-will, or even understand anything about science in general, the reason why they believe in evolution has nothing to do with evidence. The gaps and issues with evolution are like a million times bigger than the issues with the hypothesis that we don’t have free-will.

Of course I think that evolution is false based on modern physics which predicts 3 possibilities for species: Remaining nearly the same, becoming weaker, or becoming extinct.
Of course I think that free-will is non-existent based on the evidence, the evidence is unbelievably concrete on this based on repeatable experiments and direct observations (the most concrete forms of evidence in science).

If someone questions the evidence on free-will, QM, GR, or any other theory or hypothesis in science with unscientific junk the atheist-controlled media has no issue, but if someone questions evolution with valid scientific criticisms the media and society doesn’t allow it , you could get fired, heavily attacked, kicked out, etc…it really shows that evolution is not a scientific theory but protected like a religious belief.

Evolution isn’t even a real scientific theory, it’s a science fiction story. Almost all of the evidence evolutionists have is imaginations, for every other theory or hypothesis in science we’re told that “imaginations aren’t equivalent to scientific evidence”.

In order for evolution to work things not only have to change but change and repeatedly increase in complexity in an ordered way, just like believing in magic or the supernatural (contrary to what evolutionists claim, evolution is not a natural explanation).

There’s like 3 experiments on evolution and almost everything else in evolution is just fanciful imaginations, just like someone imagining a perpetual motion machine diagram working their minds, it’s just fantasy.

Evolution is Maxwell’s Demon, except we’re told that for evolution “if you can imagine it happening, it’s good enough evidence”, for every other theory imaginations aren’t equivalent to scientific evidence.

I didn’t know that your imagination is the equivalent to scientific evidence as evolutionists believe.

What’s going to happen overtime to species is just what physics predicts (remaining nearly the same, becoming weaker, or becoming extinct) not the fanciful imaginations of evolutionists.

Share this:

Like this:

I’m trying to start a new petition to view atheists as fully subhuman, subhuman beings.

I had a petition on another site but some atheists cried and got it removed for “hate speech” or whatever, nasty people always trying to force and impose their way and their beliefs onto the entire world.

So if you agree with me that atheists should be viewed as subhuman just a post a comment, it’ll count as like a signature.

On my other blog post I explained why I view atheists as fully subhuman as opposed to partially human or human:

Reasons for viewing atheists as fully subhuman:

Atheists refuse to oppose racism and nationalism but voice up their position on things like gay rights and abortion rights

100% of all modern day atheist countries are extremely racist/nationalist beyond imagination (Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia, New Zealand, and every other atheist country)

Atheists and the atheist-controlled media refuse to attack free-will believers like how they attack Creationists even though the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is like a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution(young Earth Creationists are more rational than free-will believers)

Atheists refuse to acknowledge the undeniable historical consensus that religion directly caused the scientific revolution and insist on telling lies thoroughly debunked by historians (there aren’t any modern day historians that believe in the “Dark Ages” lie portrayed in the atheist-controlled media)

Atheists refuse to acknowledge the undeniable historical fact that Faraday’s religion directly caused Maxwell’s Equations to come into existence, and instead lie and portray the opposite

Atheists are trying to redefine the definition of science so that all that matters is authority and incredulity instead of empirical observations and valid reasoning, turning science into pseudoscience

Atheists are trying to throw away a very important principle in science – criticism and scrutiny, and turn science into pseudoscience

Atheists don’t allow people to question, scrutinize, and criticize atheistic arguments, they just breakdown and cry and interpret any criticism as “trolling”

Larry Darby the former state director of the popular atheist group “American Atheists” is a holocaust denier, Tom Metzger founder of the Neo-Nazi group “White Aryan Resistance” is an atheist, Alex Linder owner and operator of the popular White Nationalist forum “VNN” is an atheist, etc…..you have to realize that every White atheist is in on this racism/White Nationalism/Nazism thing together as one.

The dream of a Whites-only type of society is finally coming back. Back in 1988 no one in Sweden supported the Nazi party, it’s only in 2010 that they gained support.

I predict that the US will probably become as racist as say New Zealand by the 2030s once the atheist population goes up like it is in atheist countries like New Zealand, Sweden, Latvia, Denmark, etc…

Some people think that I’m wrong, but I know that I’m right that the atheist/agnostic/non-religious population directly causes White Nationalism to rise because the main obstacle to White Nationalism right now is the Church and religion.

The only way that a non-white can get support from the atheist community is if they claim to be gay, if you’re a non-white non-gay you can’t get any support from the atheist community.

If you say something like “I hate gays” or “someone beat up some gays” the atheist community would come out up to voice up their position but if you say something like “I hate blacks” or “someone beat up some blacks” the atheist community would intentionally remain silent since basically every White atheist strongly agrees with racism and nationalism.

If the atheist community comes out to oppose racism and White Nationalism like how they voice up their position on gay rights and abortion rights then I would view atheists as human instead of subhuman.

I don’t think that will ever happen…the atheist community unanimously supports racism and White Nationalism, either by directly agreeing with it or remaining silent in opposition to racism and White Nationalism.

All of the atheists I’ve known are racists, I don’t know any non-racist atheists…they support gay rights but also support racism.

All of the atheist evolutionists I’ve spoken to believe in free-will…ROFL can you believe it? Non-determinism falsifies evolution and evolution requires a deterministic universe…but free-will believers use non-determinism as evidence that free-will exists….what a bunch of idiots…there aren’t any evolutionists who value evidence, enough said.

If someone values evidence they would be much MORE certain that free-will is non-existent than they would be that the science fiction story called “evolution” is true because the evidence telling us that there’s no free-will is literally a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution…but evolutionists are less certain about free-will and more certain evolution….how ridiculous…it shows you how stupid they are…dumb people.

Atheists can’t handle what modern science has proven, that certain individuals are chosen and destined to achieve certain things.

Share this:

Like this:

An effort has been made by anti-science fans/atheists to value up authority and incredulity and de-value scientific evidence, empirical observations, and valid reasoning.

In order to do this modern day scientists are trying to re-define the definition of science so that all that matters is authority and incredulity, rather than actual scientific evidence, empirical observations, and valid reasoning.

The scientific consensus (what scientists believe) is an appeal to authority unless the consensus view is directly accompanied by scientific evidence, empirical observations, and valid reasoning.

In other words what authority figures say or believe isn’t equivalent to scientific evidence that something is true.

The scientific consensus is an appeal to authority + argument ad populum in one.

The way that you determine whether or not a hypothesis is true or false in science is by empirically testing the hypothesis, not by looking at what authority figures say or believe.

Examples of when the Scientific Consensus is an Appeal to Authority:
– Authority figures reject an experiment that contradicts previously accepted notions even though the experiment has been replicated and has stood up to criticism and scrutiny
– 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will, therefore free-will exists
– 87% of scientists believe evolution is due to undirected processes, therefore evolution occurred through undirected processes
– Authority figures accept the String Theory as “science” even though it matches the definition of pseudoscience
– The majority of physicists accept the Copenhagen-Interpretation as true, therefore it must be true (there’s no empirical evidence distinguishing which interpretation of the double-slit experiment is true)
– Many physicists believe in multiple universes, therefore they must exist (there’s no empirical evidence supporting multiple universes)
– There is no consensus on “X” subject even though there’s lots of scientific evidence telling us whether or not it’s true or false

The scientific consensus is often used by evolutionists as great evidence, this is because evolutionists know how extremely weak and fragile the evidence on evolution is so they always change the subject away from evidence and towards authority and incredulity.

Evolutionists know how weak of a theory evolution is so they are trying to stop people from questioning, criticizing, or scrutinizing evolution like they would with any other scientific theory. If a statement really is true will stand up to any amount of criticism so what are evolutionists so afraid of?

If we go strictly by evidence only evolution is the weakest theory in modern science, weaker than General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, chemistry, the evidence telling us there’s no free-will, time-measurement, gravity, etc….but the media has come out to protect evolution like a religious belief rather than treating it the same as any other scientific theory.

Professors who criticize evolution are often heavily attacked by the atheist-controlled media, but professors who believe in free-will, doubt the evidence on General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, gravity, or any other theory in science are very rarely ever attacked by the atheist-controlled media. It really shows you how well-protected evolution is.

Almost all of the “evidence” in evolution is imaginations and speculations (the very very weakest forms of evidence), it’s not even a real scientific theory, it’s a real science fiction story.

The attitude in the atheist-controlled media is that you’re allowed to be unscientific if you’re not criticizing evolution, but not allowed to be scientific if you are criticizing evolution.

I’ve read lots of unscientific junk in peer-reviewed journals, it really shows you how authority and incredulity matters more than actual scientific evidence and empiricism.

The scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is literally a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution, no amount of evolutionary biologists believing otherwise changes this.

Since 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will we know with 100% certainty that they don’t care about evidence or value evidence or understand science, the reason why they believe in evolution has nothing to do with evidence. Biologists in general don’t understand anything about science and are unintelligent.

Even worse free-will believers usually use non-determinism as evidence of free-will but non-determinism falsifies evolution, ROFL!!!

Authority figures saying something or believing something will never be equivalent to scientific evidence.

Science will never be determined by polls, what authority figures believe, etc….but always by empirical observations, scientific evidence, and valid reasoning.

So in conclusion what authority figures say or believe by itself isn’t equivalent to scientific evidence!

This means that doing nothing might have the same effect as the most stringent mitigation!

So this means all this effort put into stopping man-made CO2 emissions is a waste of time.

What we should be doing is preparing for the effects of global warming and also other catastrophic events unrelated to human caused global warming that could occur.

If we stopped all man-made CO2 emissions tomorrow the effects of global warming would still occur, and other events unrelated to human caused global warming would occur.

So what people should be doing is preparing for the effects of global warming first, then maybe focusing on stopping people from generating man-made CO2 emissions afterwards.

Possible effects of global warming include flooding, droughts, weather disturbances, and natural disasters which may cause a food crisis in the future (but these things could also occur without human caused global warming).

I predict that a global food crisis is realistically likely in the 2030s-2040s (but because of the increase in the human population up to 9 billion, not global warming).

The world population by the year 2200 will probably be 500 million or less, if my predictions are correct!

So it’s best for humanity and mankind to prepare for the effects of catastrophic events (food crisis, natural disasters, wars, etc…) in general rather than focusing on preventing global warming from happening!

What humans should be focusing on (instead of focusing on stopping a few people from generating CO2 emissions):
– Manufacturing and producing your own food (you can do this with traditional farming, a greenhouse, a aquaponics greenhouse or other methods in your backyard)
– Natural disaster proofing your home (from floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc….)
– Installing a bomb shelter in case war breaks out
– Producing your own water (can be done by drilling your own water well, with Atmospheric Water Generators or other methods)
– Producing your own electricity (can be done with wind turbines, solar panels, home generators, and other methods)

If people focused on these things that I listed as much as they do on stopping a few people from generating man-made CO2 emissions we would be able to possibly prevent the upcoming food crisis (it isn’t IF it will occur but WHEN it will occur) but instead the media focuses only on stopping a few people from generating man-made CO2 emissions (what a waste of time).

Hopefully the media’s attitude will change and shift towards getting people to prepare for catastrophic events in general rather than focusing on getting a few people to stop generating man-made CO2 emissions before it’s too late!

Summary:
– The most stringent mitigation might be indistinguishable from no mitigation
– Stopping all man-made CO2 emissions wouldn’t prevent global warming or other catastrophic events unrelated to human caused global warming
– The recent global warming slowdown has been blamed on the Sun
– It’s better to prepare for the effects of global warming and other catastrophic events rather than focusing on stopping a few people from generating man-made CO2 emissions

It’s simple: If you go strictly by evidence you would be more certain that free-will is non-existent than you would be that evolution is true.

Atheist biologists aren’t going by evidence, that’s why they have no issue with denying repeatable experiments and direct observations telling us there’s no free-will but have an issue with people denying assumptions in evolution that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, LOL!

If you’re willing to deny repeatable experiments and direct observations (the most concrete form of evidence in science) to believe in free-will then you should be willing to deny any type of evidence in science.

On the other hand if you’re willing to believe in evolution (relies on many assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate) then you should be willing to believe in anything supported by repeatable experiments and direct observation.

But we see that this isn’t the case, thereby proving that evolutionary biologists do not really care about evidence.

The reason why evolutionary biologists believe in evolution is because they are strongly biased towards evolution, not because of evidence. If evidence was important to them they would be much more certain that free-will is non-existent than they would be that evolution is true.

There aren’t any evolutionary biologists that value evidence or go strictly by evidence.

You have to realize the truth that not one atheist evolutionist in all of the entire world actually cares about or values evidence, they are just biased towards evolution.

Most biologists who believe in free-will don’t even realize that non-determinism and disorder would falsify evolution, lol (most free-will believers attack determinism).

“The Problem of Free-Will” argument is usually used against religion so of course the atheist-controlled media won’t come out to attack free-will believers like how they’ve attacked Creationists.

Have you ever heard even one time a Professor getting fired for believing in free-will or teaching that free-will could exist? I haven’t.

On the other hand if a Professor merely questions or criticizes evolution they could get fired or heavily persecuted, why is this?

Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon was heavily criticized for merely saying that studying evolution was useless (not even criticizing evolution or saying that it’s false). Of course Egnor is correct, evolution has very few real-world applications. When you’re studying neurosurgery and other things it doesn’t matter if humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, or Neanderthals, or were genetically engineered by aliens, or Created, what matters is how the brain works here and how.

So indeed studying evolution would be useless…can you believe someone can get that much trouble for saying that but if they were to say something like studying ancient history is useless for electrical engineers nothing would happen would to them? It shows you how well-controlled the atheist-controlled media is.

I’ve read lots of unscientific junk in peer-reviewed journals, apparently you’re allowed to be unscientific if you’re not criticizing evolution. For instance people are allowed to criticize the evidence telling us there’s no free-will with all types of unscientific junk, and nothing happens to them, they don’t get attacked, they don’t get fired.

The media has no issue with free-will believers or people questioning the scientific evidence telling us that there’s no free-will but has an issue with people questioning the evidence on evolution, why is this? Because the media isn’t going by science or evidence, they’re going by what supports atheism.

The media is ATHEIST-CONTROLLED and can careless about evidence.

The media is atheist-controlled and biased that’s why they have no issue with people questioning the experiments telling us that there’s no free-will, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or anything else in science but have an issue with people questioning evolution – a crackpot perpetual motion machine idea, because evolution is protected like a religious belief and not treated as another theory open to criticism and scrutiny.

Why should evolution be protected like a religious belief rather than treated as just another scientific theory open to criticism and scrutiny?

It’s the because the media and society is biased and ATHEIST-CONTROLLED. That’s the only rational explanation.

Atheists are always trying to force and impose their ways and their beliefs onto society.

I’ve already proven in my other article that evolution is just nonsense, basically a crackpot theory nearly equivalent to believing in perpetual motion machines.

On anti-science/atheist blog sites like “https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com” they have to pre-approve comments and don’t allow people to question or criticize them, this is because they are anti-science and know that they are wrong.

One of the main principles in science use to be criticism and scrutiny prior to the fools (atheists) taking over science, this is because if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism.

Since evolutionists know that they are wrong of course they will try everything in their power to prevent and stop any type of criticism of evolution, perhaps the very weakest theory in all of science history.

Evolutionists can’t handle that their science fiction story called “evolution” is obviously false.

From a strict empiricist point of view only conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments can be regarded as “true”.

We can objectively measure how weak or strong a theory is by how many assumptions it relies on that have been experimentally tested and verified as accurate.

By that measure, evolution has to be very weakest most fragile theory in all of science history!

Informal Proof that believing in free-will is more irrational than denying evolution:

Premise 1: Denying repeatable experiments and direct observations is more irrational than denying assumptions that cannot be experimentally verified as accurate

1. The scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is based upon direct observations, repeatable experiments, and also physics (which engineers have experimentally verified as accurate billions of times already)

2. The scientific evidence supporting evolution is based on inferences and conclusions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, and is an anomaly in physics

3. From Premise 1, denying the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent would be more irrational than denying the evidence supporting evolution

Thus believing in free-will is more irrational than denying evolution

Summary of the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent (atheist biologists have no issue with people questioning this evidence yet they have an issue with people questioning the extraordinarily weak evidence supporting evolution which is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate showing their anti-science/atheist nature):
– Libet’s experiment
– Transcranial Magnetic Stimuli experiment
– Reaction Time experiment
– Evidence supporting the neural-correlate explanation (means that neurons make our decisions, no choosing involved)
– The empirical observation that drugs and chemical reactions alter consciousness
– The empirical observation that brain-related injuries can cause permanent changes in behavior and consciousness
– The empirical observation that the brain is a vital organ and must behave in a deterministic way for humans to survive
– The empirical observation that different species have different behaviors varying by their brain size and structure
– Accidental decisions
– Involuntary decisions
– Impossible decisions (eg…someone feels as if they can run 100 mph or reach something too far away)
– Psychology (tells us that human behavior is the result of conditioning, not choices)
– Neurology
– Biology
– Chemistry
– Physics (no model in physics allows for free-will to exist, neither determinism nor non-determinism)

So basically questioning the evidence on free-will is equivalent to questioning science in general.

The problems and gaps in evolution are much much much bigger than the issues with the hypothesis that there is no free-will, humans merely feel as if they can choose when in reality they always uncontrollably act all the time (there’s no issue at all with this hypothesis, it matches into all the data perfectly).

Since 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will we can be 100% certain that they don’t really care about evidence, science, logic, or reasoning.

They believe in evolution just in the same way that someone would believe in a religious idea. They really want to believe in evolution and have to blank out all the evidence telling us that evolution is impossible.

“Evolution” is only true in biologists’ imagination…just like if you show someone a perpetual motion machine diagram they might be able to imagine it working in their minds…but in reality it wouldn’t work, it’s just fantasy and imagination…it’s the same thing with evolution, biologists just imagine it working in their minds, it wouldn’t happen in reality.

Just imagine how much better things would be if people gave up on the “free-will delusion”, you wouldn’t be able to blame anyone, people would instead focus on the scientific causes of negative behavior, it would be really easy to forgive and forget, not hold grudges, let go of anger, and see the true innocence in all beings.

Right now because people really believe in free-will they can’t forgive or forget or not hold grudges…they think in their mind “this person chose to do this, they could’ve done this or that, but they chose not to”.

If instead they believed in science they would instead think in their mind “this person never chose to do this, it happened because of uncontrollable reactions in the person’s body and brain” and it would really really easy to forgive and forget and not hold grudges!

Based on modern science I’ve concluded that I was chosen for a special purpose, and that certain individuals are destined to achieve certain things.

In conclusion: Don’t trust what evolutionary biologists say or believe since they aren’t going by evidence and are basically anti-science clowns.

Share this:

Like this:

What do you call a theory that relies on too many experimentally unverifiable assumptions? A science fiction story. – itsnobody

If we are to be completely honest and objective with ourselves we can see with 100% certainty that evolution the theory is nothing more than a nonsensical pseudo-scientific science fiction story put out in the media and sold as true.

Initially believing in evolution because I was taught to and because of authority figures I’ve come out to oppose evolution. The atheist-controlled media can’t protect evolution forever.

Anyone who objectively evaluates the facts going only by evidence, empirical observations, and valid reasoning (rather than by authority, incredulity, and other things popular in anti-science/atheist circles) would see that evolution as we know it is a borderline impossibility!

It’s time that people stop believing lies in the atheist-controlled media and start calling out “evolution” the theory as a whole for what it really is – a nonsensical pseudo-scientific science fiction idea just the same as “X-Men” or other science fiction ideas.

The atheist-controlled media has an issue with people questioning or criticizing evolution, a borderline pseudo-scientific idea, but delusional atheists like Ayn Rand and Daniel Dennett can spread their propaganda on “free-will”, an idea thoroughly falsified in science by repeatable experiments.

Why can’t atheists and evolutionists realize that believing in free-will is more irrational than denying evolution the theory as a whole?

Obviously denying physics, every field in modern science, repeatable experiments and direct observation to believe in “free-will” is more irrational than denying assumptions in evolution which are impossible to experimentally verify as true.

The only way that you can disagree with me is if you’re not going by evidence but by your bias.

The scientific issues, problems, gaps, and unknowns in evolution are much much bigger than the scientific issues with saying there’s no free-will.

It’s pretty funny to talk to people who believe in evolution but then deny the evidence on free-will, it proves their bias and how they don’t really care about evidence at all.

Even worse, evolution requires determinism to be true, yet the fools (atheists) who believe in free-will usually attack determinism, so they are attacking evolution as well. Non-determinism would falsify evolution!

The atheist-controlled media and atheist/anti-science community has no issue with people questioning the repeatable experiments telling us that there’s no such thing as “free-will”, so why do they have an issue with people questioning assumptions in evolution that aren’t even based on anything experimentally verifiable?

The answer is because the media is CONTROLLED and BIASED towards evolution. That’s the only rational explanation.

Have you ever heard even one time anywhere any Professors getting fired for believing in free-will or even one time in the media a “free-will believer” being attacked? I haven’t.

On the other hand lots of Professors who are critical of evolution get fired, people who deny evolution are attacked in the media because the media and society is biased and doesn’t care about evidence, science, or proof.

“The Problem of Free-Will” argument is usually used against religion, so of course the atheist-controlled media won’t come out to force the non-existence free-will belief onto society like how they’ve tried to force the science fiction story called “evolution” onto society.

Otherwise we would predict that the media would be attacking free-will believers and saying you’re not allowed to say or teach that free-will exists, if the media actually cared about evidence, but this isn’t case.

So we can be around 100% certain that not even one atheist or evolutionist actually cares about evidence, science, or proof.

What a terrible thing the media has done.

Just imagine how much better society would be if people gave up on the “free-will delusion”, stopped blaming people, holding grudges, refusing to forgive and forget, saw the true innocence in all beings, and focused on the scientific causes of negative behavior.

One of the main principles in science is criticism and scrutiny, so why are evolutionists trying to stop people from questioning, criticizing, and scrutinizing evolution?

It’s simple, they know that if a theory really is true that it will stand up to any amount of criticism so they have to stop everyone from criticizing evolution because they know how weak of a theory it is and that it will be falsified.

Although I can’t be sure as to exactly how life started, I can be 100% certain that whatever happened isn’t modern day evolution as we know it.

We do not respect these anti-science atheist clowns intent on protecting their science fiction idea from criticism and scrutiny.

On my blog site full-fledged free speech is allowed, so anyone is free to refute any statement that I made (since I know that I’m right I encourage criticism).

Now onto my main arguments:

– How is evolution equivalent a science fiction story that COULD be true?

It’s pretty simple, assumptions, hypotheses, or speculations that have never been experimentally verified as accurate but could be true are equivalent to stories. Almost everything in the theory of evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, so it’s basically the same as a science fiction story.

What if I made up a story about how a long time ago in the past there were giant humanoid insect-like creatures on Earth, but they went extinct, and all their fossils disappeared…wouldn’t that be nearly the same as the modern day theory of evolution?

Or what about the “X-Men” story…a story of humans that mutate and gain superhuman powers…it’s nearly the same as evolution as well.

Lots of science fiction stories are nearly equivalent in terms of how “scientific” they are to the theory of evolution.

– The laws of physics should be modified to fit into clown evolutionists science fiction ideas?

The difference between physics and evolution is that engineers have experimentally verified the accuracy of physics literally BILLIONS of times already whereas so many assumptions in evolution are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate!

Since when did we change physics to match into assumptions that have never been experimentally verified as accurate?

But here we have the media and society saying that we should make an exception to evolution based off nothing. Apparently evolution is an exception to the second law of thermodynamics.

“But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” – Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

“[Thermodynamics] is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts.” – Albert Einstein

“The second law of thermodynamics is, without a doubt, one of the most perfect laws in physics. Any reproducible violation of it, however small, would bring the discoverer great riches as well as a trip to Stockholm. The world’s energy problems would be solved at one stroke.” – Ivan P. Bazarov, “Thermodynamics” (1964)

Evolutionist response: “The Earth is not an isolated system, therefore the law does not apply. The Sun’s energy could increase order on Earth.”

LOL! I guess everyone needs a good laugh at the clown science fiction evolutionist response.

There’s a big problem with this claim: Engineers know that entropy applies ON EARTH and in open systems.

Using the clown evolutionist reasoning engineers can give up on entropy and come up with “magical” devices since the “Earth is not an isolated system” or whatever, lol.

I guess this means that 100% efficient heat engines and perpetual motion machines that violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics are now possible ON EARTH because “the Earth is not an isolated system” LOL!

How can anyone be this stupid? I guess since the media has protected evolution like a religious belief rather than treating it as another scientific theory physicists are forced to remain silent about their doubts of this ridiculous science fiction idea called “evolution”.

“if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable” – Granville Sewell, Mathematician

The physicists most biased towards evolution only admit that “it could still be theoretically possible, but it would still be a strange phenomena, if it’s true”.

The physicists biased towards evolution have come up with nonsensical calculations showing that there’s enough energy for an entropy decrease enough to allow evolution to occur.

This claim however is borderline nonsense, nearly the same as calculating that a “99.99% efficient solar panel is easily possible” or calculating that on other planets like Mars or Venus or Mercury “the Sun’s energy could decrease entropy enough for evolution” or calculating that “the Sun provides us with 63 MW of power per square meter”.

The main issue with their calculations is not factoring in reality (they just use elementary calculations that no engineer would rely on) and that the Sun’s energy would only decrease entropy if and only if there was a mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to do so.

In reality even if there’s theoretically enough energy from the Sun to cause the entropy decrease it would never happen realistically because the Sun’s energy increases entropy and only decreases entropy if and only if there’s a special specific mechanism that uses the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy!

Solar storms from the Sun release energy, but they may one day cause the Earth to end instantly being equivalent to more than 10 billion Hiroshima atomic bombs!

Why don’t solar storms and atomic bombs decrease entropy? Because an increase in energy would increase entropy and disorder, not decrease it. An entropy decrease only comes if there’s a specific mechanism that uses energy to decrease entropy, not magically.

Using similar elementary calculations physicists have used to show that evolution is possible we can say that the Sun provides us with 63 MW of power per square meter!

However upon closer inspection we see that only around 1366 W of power per square meter is actually available because the intensity of the power drops with the squared distance from the Sun as the sphere of this emission is expanding (around 46,000 times).

If we assume that solar panels are around 25% efficient this comes to only around 340 watts per square meter!

However the actual amount is even lower since direct sunlight isn’t available 24/7.

But if we went by elementary calculations similar to the ones the physicists biased towards evolution use we would still believe that 63 MW/sq meter is provided by the Sun, so with a 25% efficient solar panel we would have 15.75 MW per square meter!

Using engineering and applying the calculations to reality shows you how ridiculous their claims are!

In other words if we go by reality-based calculations not theoretical calculations the entropy decrease from evolution would violate or almost violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

With engineering we can see the truth. Only a certain percentage of the Sun’s energy would be usable energy, and among that usable energy only a certain percentage could be used to cause an entropy decrease.

So the overall picture is that the entropy decrease required for evolution is impossible with the Sun’s energy alone!

The elementary calculations the physicists biased towards evolution use are merely theoretical and basically just fantasy and imagination.

Physicists don’t have an issue with claiming that evolution on every other planet in the universe is impossible but the physicists biased towards evolution make an exception for Earth, lol.

Can you believe that? Most physicists already have no issue with saying that on every single Earth-like planet in the entire universe evolution would be so extraordinarily unlikely that it’s basically impossible. It’s also impossible on Earth too, lol.

The media is trying to convince people to accept evolution based on the possibility that it could be true. But why should we assume that something is true because it COULD be true even if it’s extraordinarily unlikely to be true? Only because evolution is a belief protected by the media.

Using this reasoning I can assume that even if it’s extraordinarily unlikely that I would win the lottery 7 times in a row since it COULD happen it WILL happen….what backwards nonsensical reasoning.

The nonsensical science fiction response from evolutionists shows how weak of a theory evolution really is.

The main problem with their argument is that the Sun’s energy would only increase order if and only if there was a mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to increase order, not just magically!

The Sun’s energy would certainly increase entropy and not decrease entropy unless there was some specific mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy.

In the future the Sun may cause the world to end, as solar storms are one of the things that could instantly destroy the Earth at any moment at any time!

Engineers know this to be true…it doesn’t matter if someone calculates and estimates that a “99.9% efficient solar panel” is possible…they know that it’s not possible in reality because you need to come up with mechanisms that use the sun’s energy.

Engineers haven’t even come close to breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics (it would be a miracle even if they came up with a 70% efficient solar panel, even in labs coming up with a 40% efficient solar panel has been a challenge).

But according to evolutionists with their calculations this should be easy, since it’s on Earth, and you can calculate and estimate it as possible without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Using the evolutionist reasoning we can conclude that “if you stay out in the Sun you won’t ever die or grow old”….LOL.

Evolutionists often claim that this criticism should mean that “babies can’t grow into adults” but being foolish with their science fiction ideas they ignore that “adults grow old and die” (because of entropy), the decrease in entropy is only very temporary with the overall increase in entropy still prevailing!

They also ignore the fact that in the past (and still today in many developing countries) infant mortality was one of the leading killers (because of entropy) meaning many babies never grew into adults.

Evolutionists also come up with other examples to protect their crackpot science fiction ideas, ignoring the fact that the overall trend is still an increase in entropy!

A temporary decrease in entropy is possible, but the overall trend is always with entropy increasing!

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has been experimentally verified as accurate billions of times whereas almost everything in evolution has never been experimentally verified as accurate…yet we are supposed to deny experimentally verification to protect this science fiction story called “evolution”!?

“The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.” – Jeremy Rifkin, Evolutionist/anti-science fan

Evolutionists claim that anyone critical of evolution misuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics when in reality it is the evolutionists who have come up with a near “magical” science fiction idea to escape the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

The entropy decrease required for evolution is definitely like “magic”!

Instead of physicists coming out to tell the public the unbiased objective truth on this matter they are forced to remain silent and protect the science fiction idea “evolution”.

If physicists had been unbiased they would’ve already falsified evolution, viewing it the same as other crackpot ideas like perpetual motion machines.

Evolutionists are trying to stop physicists from seriously looking at evolution because they know that physicists if they unbiasedly look at it will come to the conclusion that evolution is definitely impossible!

So to summarize the issues with evolution and physics:
– Engineers have experimentally verified the accuracy of physics billions of times whereas almost everything in evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate
– The theoretical calculations used to support evolution contain errors and are unrealistic as the intensity of the power of the Sun’s energy decreases as it hits Earth
– The Sun’s energy would increase entropy and only decrease entropy if there was a specific mechanism that used the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy, not magically only decrease entropy as evolutionists believe
– Since the Sun’s energy would increase entropy it’s not realistically enough to explain the entropy decrease required for evolution
– No rational explanation to how such an entropy decrease is realistically possible (from a primitive form of bacteria to a human) is given, it’s basically equivalent to “magic”

So basically modern physics already has falsified evolution! It’s just because of the media and society that it’s given a free pass.
Evolution the theory is almost equivalent to a perpetual motion machine idea that has never been experimentally tested, basically the same as a crackpot idea that the media has protected.

– What does physics predict?

Physics which has been experimentally verified as accurate billions and billions of times by engineers, predicts extinction, not evolution in almost every case.

Physics tells us that any entropy decrease would be temporary, with the overall trend of entropy increasing prevailing!

Physics predicts that species would gradually become weaker and eventually die off (become extinct), the idea that a species would instead “evolve” into something superior and more complex fundamentally goes against physics.

Evolution would only be remotely possible in these cases:
– Short term micro-evolution (and then extinction)
– Species with extraordinarily high reproduction rates

Everything that physics predicts matches into all of the data we have perfectly (physics has been experimentally verified as accurate by engineers whereas almost everything in evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate).

This means the species that aren’t reproducing like quadrillions per day or week have a near ZERO chance of ever evolving into anything more complex and extremely high chance of either remaining the same, becoming weaker, or dying off.

So for a species like humans the chance that humans evolved is essentially zero. You have to assume that the common ancestor from which humans and chimpanzees came from somehow didn’t go extinct before it evolved, and also assume that all the ancestors of that species didn’t go extinct before it evolved, and so on all the way back to a primitive form of bacteria, which is so extraordinarily unlikely we know that it never happened!

Chance that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees didn’t go extinct before it could evolve – extremely unlikely
|
Chance that the common ancestor of that species didn’t go extinct before it could evolve – extremely extremely unlikely
|
Chance that the common ancestor of the above species didn’t go extinct before it could evolve – extremely extremely extremely unlikely
|
All the way back to a primitive form of bacteria – chance is so extremely low we know it it’s impossible

Obviously if a species goes extinct it can’t evolve into anything else.

The fossil records and biology support what physics tells us, extinction, not evolution.

We also observe just what physics tells us about species gradually becoming weaker as well. Many ancient species were larger and stronger than their modern day versions. Instead of “evolving” into something more complex as evolution predicts they became weaker over time just like physics predicts.

Biologists estimate that 99.9% of species went extinct in the past, just what physics predicts (Newman, Mark. A model of mass extinction. 1997. Journal of Theoretical Biology 189: 235-252).

– Biologists and evolutionists already agree with me, mostly

The overwhelming evidence in biology and physics supports extinction as opposed to evolution. Biologists already agree that extinction is far more likely for a species than evolution, they just claim that “somehow by some unknown means when there were mass extinctions in the past and nearly 100% of species died off life just started back later on” which of course is nonsense.

In modern times we observe extinctions going on everywhere.

Everything matches in perfectly with what physics tells us.

Problems with the evidence evolutionists and evolutionist fans provide:

– Computer models aren’t evidence of anything

A lot of evolutionists use computer models to support their delusions…the problem with this is that you can use computer models to say that anything is true, they also ignore the computer models that match into physics (showing extinction rather than evolution).

With computer models and simulations you can say that perpetual motion machines are real.

– Fossil evidence is weak, not objective, not empirically testable as accurate

Fossil evidence is often used as the strongest evidence that evolution is true, but a closer look shows that it’s just junk and not real evidence of anything.

Problems with the fossil evidence:
– Different biologists interpret the same fossils differently
– No DNA for most fossils, meaning nothing objective
– Are we actually observing evolution or extinction?

Since you can interpret the same fossils in different ways what biologists do is interpret fossils to fit into their invented models. When however real DNA is discovered usually more questions are raised than answers. This is what has happened time and time again.

For instance recently, a 400,000 year old human fossil thought to have definitely been homo heidelbergensis by biologists has now been revealed to actually be Denisovan when mtDNA was obtained, a real HUGE shock to biologists:

Most certainly biologists would still have thought of this fossil as “homo heidelbergensis” it’s only because of the mtDNA sample (something objective) that are they forced to reclassify it.

This recent find (from December 2013) forces biologists to rewrite the model of human evolution since the earliest Denisovans were supposed to have been from 40,000 years ago, not 400,000 years ago.

That is just one example of how fossil evidence is weak without an objective verification (actual DNA).

Without an objective verification of something you can just make up a story or model and say that it’s true.

This is exactly what biologists and paleontologists do with fossil research, they just make up a story or model and try to fit the fossils into the models. Since usually there’s no way to objectively verify or empirically test the accuracy of their models they can basically say that anything is true.

DNA evidence is the most objective way to empirically test the accuracy of transitional fossil models, so I predict that in the future if more DNA is gathered from fossils that we can falsify evolution.

I’m very confident that many fossils labeled as “transitional” are not in reality, they are just extinctions of different species or other things misidentified that may look somewhat similar and are classified to fit into an invented model.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” – Ronald R. West, Evolutionist/anti-science fan

Hopefully in the future if more DNA or mtDNA can be obtained from fossils we can completely falsify evolution!

Tactics used by evolutionists and the atheist-controlled media whenever evolution is criticized:

– Go by authority, incredulity, polls

Usually the media will say something like “most biologists believe in evolution therefore it must be accepted or is true”…the problem with this is just an appeal to authority.

Authority figures saying something is true isn’t equivalent to evidence that it’s true. What authority figures believe is only relevant if it’s accompanied with evidence.

Most biologists don’t understand anything about physics so who cares what they think? It’s just like someone making up a science fiction story about a perpetual motion machine.

I remember in middle school I had an idea for a perpetual motion machine, in my imagination it worked great, if I had no way to empirically test out if my machine worked I might still have believed that it worked. It’s only because we can experimentally test out machines like that that I know that my machine doesn’t work in reality.

In the same way biologists can imagine evolution working well in their minds, since they have no way to empirically test the accuracy of so many of their claims they can continue to remain in delusion.

If we go strictly by evidence, evolution the theory as a whole is so extremely unlikely that I KNOW that it never happened.

In order to prevent physicists, engineers, and others from criticizing evolution evolutionists have come up with a great anti-science strategy – just label anyone who criticizes evolution (something not experimentally verified as accurate) as a Creationist, crackpot, crazy, etc…these same people would have no issue with people criticizing General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscientists who say there’s no free-will, etc…even though these sciences have been experimentally verified as accurate whereas evolution has not!

Can you believe anyone could be that much of an anti-science fan?

One of the main principles in science is criticism and scrutiny, so why shouldn’t people be allowed to criticize evolution like how they are allowed to criticize anything else in science?

The reason why evolutionists discourage criticism and scrutiny of evolution is because they are anti-science (in opposition to science), know that their science fiction story WILL be proven wrong, and want evolution to be protected like a religious belief.

– Suppress embarrassing finds for evolutionists

Did you know that soft tissue was found in dinosaur fossils dated to 68 million – 150 million years ago (Schweitzer, Mary H.; Wittmeyer, Jennifer L.; Horner, John R. (2007). “Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present”. Proc Biol Sci 274 (1607): 183–97. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3705. PMC 1685849. PMID 17148248.)?

You probably don’t because the media has suppressed this embarrassing find for evolutionists.

I remember reading an article a long time ago where someone said something like “if they find soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil evolution would be falsified” as a joke…this actually showed up, is real, has been peer-reviewed, but where is it in the media?

But this doesn’t actually falsify the accuracy of the dating techniques…evolutionists have come up with another pseudo-scientific science fiction idea that “somehow by some unknown means iron can preserve soft tissue for 68 million years”…which is obviously another nonsensical crackpot science fiction idea.

Microbiology (based on experimentation) tells us that soft tissue can only last a maximum of around 1 million years in the best conditions……microbiologists are told to remain silent about the doubts they have about the dating techniques because they know that the hypothesis that “the dating technique is inaccurate” will be ignored and thrown out because of the anti-science nature of evolutionists (the dating technique cannot be experimentally verified as accurate or even compared to other dating techniques for accuracy by the way).

From direct observation we absolutely know with 100% certainty that all soft tissue within human remains decomposes and disappears in just 50-100 years or less!

But here we have evolutionists claiming that soft tissue can survive for 68 MILLION years! How ridiculous!

The only reason that the hypothesis that “the dating technique is inaccurate” is thrown out is because with anything connected to evolution authority and incredulity matters more than hard evidence.

Dating techniques can’t be experimentally verified as accurate (we don’t have a time machine) but they can be compared to other dating techniques. The reasoning is that it’s extremely unlikely that different dating techniques would give the same date if the technique was inaccurate.

This reasoning works well for things dated to 1 millions years or more recent, you can compare the radiometric dating to other things like ice core dating or tree ring dating to check the accuracy.

But for anything dated as older than a few million years, like 68 millions years old, there’s no way to even compare it to other dating techniques to verify the accuracy of the dating!

So basically the radiometric calculated date of 68 million is essentially the same as a science fiction number, can’t be experimentally verified as accurate or even compared to other dating techniques for accuracy, and it also directly contradicts the physical evidence (soft tissue being found).

An analogy would be your watch telling you that it’s 2 AM but you look outside and it looks like it’s 2 PM, if you have other clocks available you can check to see if your watch is wrong or not, but if somehow every other clock or time-measuring device was unavailable, what would you think?

So will evolution be falsified in the future?

Of course it will. A theory as weak as evolution that doesn’t rely on many assumptions that are empirically tested as accurate will most certainly be overthrown in the future.

Now that’s what you call a weak theory.

The two weakest things in science are evolution and history since they rely on many assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate.

If you are really pro-science or pro-empiricist you would know that you can only trust conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments and that assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify or empirically test as accurate cannot be trusted.

I predict that by the 2100s-2200s or earlier evolution will either be completely falsified or be radically changed (maybe new mechanisms or something?).

This science fiction story called “evolution” can’t be protected forever.

Eventually scientists are going to have to look at the objective facts instead of protecting evolution like a religious belief.

Conclusion: What we have here is a story that fundamentally contradicts physics that cannot be experimentally verified as accurate basically the same as a perpetual motion machine idea!

Obviously the story isn’t true.

Biologists and evolutionists can keep imagining evolution as true in their minds just as someone can imagine a perpetual motion machine working great in their minds! It’s just fantasy and imagination.

Evolutionists can keep hiding away from their superstitious science fiction belief being falsified since it relies on so many assumptions that are impossible to experimentally verify as accurate, but it won’t last.

Based on the overwhelming evidence we have, evolution as we know it is so extraordinarily unlikely to have occurred we can be 100% certain that it never happened.

I’m 100% certain that this science fiction story called “evolution” is definitely wrong and false!

Hopefully one day physicists and engineers will call out evolution for what it really is – a crackpot theory the same as believing in perpetual motion machines.

Atheists refuse to oppose racism and nationalism but voice up their position on things like gay rights and abortion rights

100% of all modern day atheist countries are extremely racist/nationalist beyond imagination (Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia, New Zealand, and every other atheist country)

Atheists and the atheist-controlled media refuse to attack free-will believers like how they attack Creationists even though the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is like a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution(young Earth Creationists are more rational than free-will believers)

Atheists refuse to acknowledge the undeniable historical consensus that religion directly caused the scientific revolution and insist on telling lies thoroughly debunked by historians (there aren’t any modern day historians that believe in the “Dark Ages” lie portrayed in the atheist-controlled media)

Atheists refuse to acknowledge the undeniable historical fact that Faraday’s religion directly caused Maxwell’s Equations to come into existence, and instead lie and portray the opposite

Atheists are trying to redefine the definition of science so that all that matters is authority and incredulity instead of empirical observations and valid reasoning, turning science into pseudoscience

Atheists are trying to throw away a very important principle in science – criticism and scrutiny, and turn science into pseudoscience

Atheists don’t allow people to question, scrutinize, and criticize atheistic arguments, they just breakdown and cry and interpret any criticism as “trolling”

If atheists and the atheist community gave up on these things I would consider them as human or partially human.

If you go on YouTube you’ll see that the majority or at least half of the racist comments are from atheists even though there’s a low atheist population in the US. You have to realize that every atheist is in on this White Nationalism/racism thing together as one, that’s why they won’t come out to oppose racism and other racist atheists, they would only come out to try to stop people from criticizing racism thereby ensuring that the racism and nationalism thrives.

The dream of a Whites-only type of society is finally coming back. Back in 1988 no one in Sweden supported the Nazi party, it’s only 2010 that they gained support. Instead of calling it a “White Supremacy Organization” you just call it “Atheist Group” instead.

It’s just better to start viewing atheists as subhuman beings.

Although I can’t be 100% certain of everything, I can be 100% certain that – atheists block human progress, hold back science, and pose the greatest threat to mankind.

What atheists want to do is live backwards in the stone age with trees and grass, they hate science and technology.

Estonia (the most atheistic country) has 0 Nobel prizes.
Switzerland and Austria (the 1st and 2nd most religious Western countries) have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science per capita.

After atheists took over science the late 1960s and early 1970s we immediately stopped finding cures, the life expectancy started growing slower, physics became stuck with empirically untestable hypotheses, science is turning into pseudoscience, and technology started growing slower.

Atheists hate technology and science and just believe in living in grass.

The only real solution to this issue is – the complete systematic extermination of atheism and atheistic beliefs.

Come come view atheists as subhuman, the enemy, the lowest!

I’m the King of argumentation logic, there’s nothing these fools (atheists) can do in response except for throw personal attacks when presented with undeniable historical and scientific facts.

In the beginning, middle, and end I win. They say humans like this only come around a few thousand years or so. Atheists are subhuman like animals they can be found anywhere.

Atheists should just give up, go home, and ignore the whole situation, they know that if they present their atheistic argument in front me I’ll break it up apart and make them look foolish (atheistic). They can go back to their agreeing-contest anti-science/atheist forums that don’t allow criticism, scrutiny, or free speech like how I do. They are always so afraid, weak, and useless.

There will never be any atheist-controlled forum or blog that allows free speech and free criticism and scrutiny like how I do, this is because the fools (atheists) know that if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so they have to strongly discourage any type of criticism of atheistic arguments and beliefs knowing their ways to be false.

I know that my ways are true and will stand up to any amount of criticism, so I allow and encourage criticism, unlike the fools (atheists).

When I see an atheist crying in my mind I think “What a great joy, what a great joy it is that this low-life racist is now crying”.

When atheists throw personal attacks at me, it’s like nothing to me. It’s just like a dog, a cat, or some other domestic animal throwing personal attacks at me, I don’t feel anything. Since I view atheists as subhuman beings like domestic animals why should I become bothered?

The only way a non-white can get an atheist to support them is if they claim to be gay, then they would come out to support them then. The reason why the atheist community voices their position on gay rights but not racism is because they actually disagree with people who oppose gay rights, but they don’t disagree with people who support racism.